You mean like how COD was a Battlefield ripoff? The Battlefield series has been around longer than COD. They did WWII first, they did Vietnam first, and then did modern warfare before the COD series (they also did future, which you just know that is coming up for COD). If anyone is doing the ripping off, it's the COD series. Of course COD eliminated vehicles and added killstreak perks for that true sense of "realism."Adzma said:
Well, that is pretty tough since there are different Battlefield games. Yet the main difference is past Battlefield games were PC only. The maps were huge, and they supported 64 player matches. Battlefield 2 had jets, as with other Battlefield games that had era appropriate aircraft (something that will be back in BF3). Other Battlefield games also had prone (which of course led to the famous dolphin diving). Those are probably the major hitters, with the huge maps and 64 players being the major things. If you want more, go to any Battlefield forum. You will not have any trouble having hardcore Battlefield fans list the differences they didn't like. I have been playing Battlefield games since BF1942. BFBC2 certainly had a slightly difference feel, but I thought it has some nice additions and is very fun. For some reason some of the hardcore fans get ticked about it. Seems like wasted energy to me, but to each their own.Frizzle said:
Well, if you want to that you could say Battlefield games go back to Refractor Games that made codename Eagle, which featured multiplayer modes Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and Capture the Flag in 1999. That was the precursor to the BF games. The COD link to the Medal of Honor series goes to Allied Assault, which was 2002 and their first true multiplayer game (unless you count their laser tag game). The other MoH games were console games, which only had split screen type multiplayer (plus they were not done by 2015 Inc. which is the link to Infinity Ward). Besides, the first MoH and CoD multiplayers (plus the laser tag one) were just Quake multiplayer games.tsb247 said:
My thoughts exactly. It doesn't matter how good your graphics engine is. Everything in the footage I've seen is, content wise, the same old stuff we've seen in Battlefield. I mean, feel free to increase the immersion guys, but no matter what you do, Battlefield looks like Battlefield. This ain't no Crysis.RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
But is it noticeable enough to be noteworthy? I see the lighting effects, but not much else.Xzi said:
Because explosions are cool and it is a game.Rosetta said:
It's perfectly possible the cars had IEDs in them or something. But it could well just be hollywood logic.Rosetta said:
Well, I would never get too excited about the first person storyline/actions in Battlefield games. Most of the Battlefield games were very weak stories (or actual war stories) where you simply played like the multiplayer but vs. bots. Bad Company is the only one with an actual story with a normal first person mode, and both of them were pretty weak. Battlefield is about multiplayer, and I am sure they will do that well.Andy of Comix Inc said:
Where does it say Battlefield 3 is meant to be realistic, anyway? Did you see that earthquake at the end? I think it's more of a "fuck yeah!" moment filled game than a dramatic, realistic storyline type game.Rosetta said:
